[Imc] Re: your mail

[David Young]

On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 09:14:56AM -0600, Zachary C.Miller wrote:
> > The question seemed to be "do we slant, in response to their slant?"
> 
> I heard someone give a very interesting analysis of "objective
> journalism" at a WEFT meeting a while back. If whoever said this stuff
> is on this list I apologize for stealing your ideas!
> 
> Anyway the suggestion was that the very concept of "objective
> journalism" is a product of capitalism and profit motive. Big profits
> come from the economies of scale of mass media but you can't have mass
> media unless you have a mass audience and you can't build a mass
> audience unless your news is as thoughoughly homogenized,
> uncontroversial, and painless to digest as possible. 

    To start off, let me observe that most people probably do not read
    one newspaper, let alone two, likely for reasons of time, expense,
    and newspapers' pervasive bias.

    Seems to me that there are at least two ways to build a mass news
    audience. First, by news that is uncontroversial, and (universally)
    painless to digest. Second, by news where everyone sees their views
    represented.

    There are at least two ways, also, to achieve a news source that,
    with respect to its intended audience, is "thoroughly homogenized,
    uncontroversial, and painless to digest."  First, you can produce news
    that appeals to everyone because it is editorially bland. Second,
    you can produce news that appeals very well to a particular group
    by taking an editorial position that precludes general interest.

    The WEFTie argues, in effect, for a news source that is
    uncontroversial and painlessly digested because it precludes general
    interest. That is, only Communists, or Democrats, or John Birch
    Society members will read it. I do not think those are very useful
    or interesting news sources at their inception (I can go into the
    reasons why), and they only get worse.

    A more useful and interesting news source is one where everyone
    sees their views represented in a *dialogue*.  That is, two or more
    contributors with different views address each others' arguments in
    the same pages.  (Imagine that! Someone speaking to another's argument
    on TV or in the newspaper, instead of saying "I have a difference of
    opinion"---even on matters of fact---and launching right back into
    their hallucinogenic version of things, like pundits are wont to do.)

Dave